• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dawkins' Profile

T

tosca1

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2013
Messages
35,261
Reaction score
5,708
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In his so-called, "REASON RALLY" (2012), Richard Dawkins prompted and stimulated his followers to deliberately seek to offend religious people.




Having talked about New Atheism - The Religion of New Atheism - which was co-founded by Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and Hitchens, my "fascination" with Dawkins had prompted me to create a thread in his honor.
This man no doubt caught the attention of atheists - and religious people - all over the world with his radical style of expressing his views, and his call for followers to rise up. He's keen on declaring war.

My feelings over this man is mixed with pity, and anger, and awe.
 
Last edited:
In 2011, this video went viral.




Richard Dawkins was about to come down in a big way. The challenge from William Lane Craig to a one-on-one debate was cheered by religious people! Atheists wanted this to happen, too.
 
The New Atheism movement is supposed to be an in-your-face-offense tactic against religion/faith. Well, practically everyone - including atheists - are pushing Dawkins to get into an in-your-face with Craig....but Dawkins just won't!

He didn't show up. The chair remained empty.

Big words. Talking about aggressive offense when he can't even do any defense!

The optics are not good for those fence-sitters, or those who got swayed by Dawkins' book, The God Delusion. This must be a big let-down.
If Dawkins cannot bring himself to stand by his own book, that says a lot about the rubbish that's in that book!
It must mean, he knew Craig would easily tear his book apart!
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
My feelings over this man is mixed with pity, and anger, and awe.
Click to expand...

Nice try. I just listened to the unedited version of the speech (16 minutes long), and Dawkins is very mild in his tone throughout. He is only suggesting that you mock ideas like a 'blessed wafer turning into the body of Christ', and 'wine turning into blood'. He is not suggesting that you overtly offend religious people for the sake of it, but rather provoke them into questioning their beliefs.

 
If you write books attacking, smearing and maligning someone or something....don't be too sure no one's going to challenge and try to prove you wrong.

If you know you are right, and you've got facts to back you up....why wouldn't you face your challengers? What more when you're a scientist? And what more if you proudly claim you've got scientific evidences. Surely you can prove them wrong.

If you write a book, being purposefully offensive and insulting, admitting that your goal is to bust someone's belief/doctrine - and instigating other atheists to be as offensive as they can be - and declare war....well, the least you could do is defend your position when the fight begins!
 
"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

He got stumped.





The video of Dawkins' getting stumped....plus his cowardly refusal to face his challengers - scientists creationist - in a debate proves that Dawkins is just full of bravado! He writes POPULAR SCIENCE! Riding on the backs of fundamentalist atheists - the New Atheists - who have deep-seated hatred for religion and God. He caters to their need of assurance, and "pay-back" mentality. A lot of these fundamentalist atheists are usually former Christians.
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
If you know you are right, and you've got facts to back you up....why wouldn't you face your challengers? What more when you're a scientist? And what more if you proudly claim you've got scientific evidences. Surely you can prove them wrong.
Click to expand...

People tend to bow out of debates when they challenge Dawkins, and Dawkins actually shows up. When he doesn't show up, then they show up and proclaim victory by default.

 
I would like to emphasize that I'm not referring to all atheists. I talk about the atheists that adhere to Dawkins' type of so-called, "reason."
 
There's a 2 hour video clip on Youtube of Dawkins debating with a creationist. It didn't get him anywhere, since the creationist just kept repeating her arguments after Dawkins destroyed them. You cannot debate with someone who is behind an invisible wall which repels facts.
 
Why would he offer the oxygen of publicity to these superstitious mouthbreathers? He can only lose credibility by being associated with them.
 
In 2006, Dawkins explains why he doesn't want to debate creationists.

Yet in Feb 2010, he went after Creationist Wendy Wright. Oh yeah, he called it an "interview."
He must've thought she's just a blonde bimbo.

Well guess who got flustered first!



"Where did you study science?" he asked. Really.
Didn't he do his homework before "interviewing" Wendy Wright to know her credentials - or lack of science credentials?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
I would like to emphasize that I'm not referring to all atheists. I talk about the atheists that adhere to Dawkins' type of so-called, "reason."
Click to expand...

It would appear from your emissions thus far, that reason remains a distant aspiration to you.
 
Here's the video. I would not recommend watching it, unless you're in the mood for a cerebral hemorrhage.

 
Amadeus said:
There's a 2 hour video clip on Youtube of Dawkins debating with a creationist. It didn't get him anywhere, since the creationist just kept repeating her arguments after Dawkins destroyed them. You cannot debate with someone who is behind an invisible wall which repels facts.
Click to expand...

Oh please....

Science vs God: Richard Dawkins takes on Archbishop of Canterbury

Friday 24 February 2012
Click to expand...
Science vs God: Richard Dawkins takes on Archbishop of Canterbury - Science - News - The Independent
 
tosca1 said:
Yet in Feb 2010, he went after Creationist Wendy Wright. Oh yeah, he called it an "interview."
He must've thought she's just a blonde bimbo.

Well guess who got flustered first!
Click to expand...

Dawkins got flustered because he was trying to reason with someone who was immune to evidence.
 
Also, tosca, you haven't yet addressed the fact that you started this thread with a misleading video. Perhaps you were suckered, but I would like you to admit your mistake.
 
Amadeus said:
Nice try. I just listened to the unedited version of the speech (16 minutes long), and Dawkins is very mild in his tone throughout. He is only suggesting that you mock ideas like a 'blessed wafer turning into the body of Christ', and 'wine turning into blood'. He is not suggesting that you overtly offend religious people for the sake of it, but rather provoke them into questioning their beliefs.
Click to expand...

Tone, whether mild or vehement does not matter. It's the message.


Blasphemy Day: A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists
By majestic on October 21, 2009 in News

Last month, atheists marked Blasphemy Day at gatherings around the world, and celebrated the freedom to denigrate and insult religion.
Some offered to trade pornography for Bibles. Others de-baptized people with hair dryers. And in Washington, D.C., an art exhibit opened that shows, among other paintings, one entitled Divine Wine, where Jesus, on the cross, has blood flowing from his wound into a wine bottle.
Another, Jesus Paints His Nails, shows an effeminate Jesus after the crucifixion, applying polish to the nails that attach his hands to the cross.

For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." His words were greeted with hoots of approval.

The more outrageous the message the better, says PZ Myers, who writes an influential blog that calls, among other things, for the end of religion. On Blasphemy Day, Myers drove a rusty nail through a consecrated Communion wafer and posted a photo on his Web site.

"People got very angry," he recalls. "I don't know why. I mean, it's just a cracker, right?"
Click to expand...
A Bitter Rift Divides Atheists : NPR
 
Manc Skipper said:
Why would he offer the oxygen of publicity to these superstitious mouthbreathers? He can only lose credibility by being associated with them.
Click to expand...

What credibility to lose? He doesn't have any credibility!
He is a biologist, for crying out loud! He's not a philosopher! He ought to stick to his lab and maybe he'll eventually earn a nobel!

He's making himself to be what he's not. He is a fraud!

Richard Dawkins's refusal to debate is cynical and anti-intellectualist

Richard Dawkins is not alone in his refusal to debate with William Lane Craig. The vice-president of the British Humanist Association (BHA), AC Grayling has also flatly refused to debate Craig, stating that he would rather debate "the existence of fairies and water-nymphs".

Given that there isn't much in the way of serious argumentation in the New Atheists' dialectical arsenal, it should perhaps come as no surprise that Dawkins and Grayling aren't exactly queuing up to enter a public forum with an intellectually rigorous theist like Craig to have their views dissected and the inadequacy of their arguments exposed.
Click to expand...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
For example, Hitchens, a columnist for Vanity Fair and author of the book God Is Not Great, told a capacity crowd at the University of Toronto, "I think religion should be treated with ridicule, hatred and contempt, and I claim that right." His words were greeted with hoots of approval.
Click to expand...

Hitchens is not Dawkins. This thread is about Dawkins.
 
Here's Dawkins' debate with the creationist, near the end of the video. Just to give you a glimpse of why Dawkins was flustered. I admire Dawkins' stamina.

 
Manc Skipper said:
It would appear from your emissions thus far, that reason remains a distant aspiration to you.
Click to expand...

The predictable response from someone who's got nothing else to say. Personal attack! You're done.

Bye-bye.
 
Amadeus said:
Also, tosca, you haven't yet addressed the fact that you started this thread with a misleading video. Perhaps you were suckered, but I would like you to admit your mistake.
Click to expand...

No. The message is still the same.
 
tosca1 said:
No. The message is still the same.
Click to expand...

No, it's not. Your original video is intentionally edited to make that Dawkins appear mean-spirited, whereas his actual intent was to challenge absurd concepts (which I mentioned).
 
Amadeus said:
Here's the video. I would not recommend watching it, unless you're in the mood for a cerebral hemorrhage.

Click to expand...


You're missing the point though why this video was given. Dawkins said he wouldn't debate with a creationist, remember? He's not supposed to be debating with a creationist! Though he called this an "interview," clearly he was debating with her!

Therefore we can add sleazy tactics among Dawkins' arsenals of tricks!
 
tosca1 said:
You're missing the point though why this video was given. Dawkins said he wouldn't debate with a creationist, remember? He's not supposed to be debating with a creationist! Though he called this an "interview," clearly he was debating with her!

Therefore we can add sleazy tactics among Dawkins' arsenals of tricks!
Click to expand...

So what is your point? That Dawkins is selective in his debates? That he should debate everyone who challenges him? Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom